Wednesday, November 9, 2016

The Truth About Question 1

The
biggest question is, why did a
billionaire from New York City, Michael Bloomberg, buy a gun control law in
Nevada? Why did he do it in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Maine as well? We
know from various statements and other sources that the ultimate goal is gun
registration and ideally an Australian gun control scheme complete with
confiscations.

Universal
background checks are just a lie sold to a gullible, low-information public to
accept temporary safety at the expense of liberty. There is no gun show or
internet loophole and background checks can always be done by a dealer between
any two parties who want one.

Now
Question 1 was sold to the public as “background checks on all gun sales”; an absolute weasel word phrase. The majority of guns
sales come through dealers and various studies have shown that private sales of
the type Question 1 would prohibit are not the main, or even top source of
criminals’ guns. Private gun sales create a problem for gun registration
because it is a market that cannot be accurately tracked.

Universal
background checks are unenforceable without knowing definitively who actually
owns the gun, so by its very nature, a universal background check needs gun
registration. Gun registration needs not background checks, but guns to go
through gun dealers. A retroactive gun registration requirement would be met
with massive non-compliance and outright rebellion, so, as in the case of
California in particular, the preferred method to gun registration is via
dealer sale/transaction reporting (see the California DROS-Dealers’ Record of
Sale).

Once
all guns sales/transactions must go through dealers, they are recorded on ATF
Form 4473s, which creates a scattered, analogue gun registry now. However, as
California does, requiring dealers to report the sales/transactions to the
government will gradually create a registry of every new gun sold and every
used gun that legally changes hands. Eventually, through sales/trades of used
guns, or a winnowing of exemptions (California recently eliminated the
exemption for family member trades or sales), virtually all used guns, after
many years, will be in the registry as well.

Wrapping
up the gun registration rabbit hole, the curious question is: Why did Question
1 require private gun sales/transfers to go through the federal NICS system
while Nevada has a more complete state
system that has local and federal
records? Easy; once enough states have banned private sales and have their
checks run through NICS, it is so much easier to have Congress pass a federal
dealer reporting, aka gun registration, system built on a foundation of NICS
background checks.

Answering
the above question about Mr. Bloomberg (and not speculating on his personal
motives), the only answer is once again is an insidious plot to gradually
introduce a gun registry. In 2013, the universal background checks bills in
Congress were shut down and many losses happened in other states, including
Nevada. Stymied by politicians and checks and balances, Bloomberg’s hydra-headed
gun control groups and the other usual suspects began to exploit weak, ‘purple’
states with large numbers of Democrats. In Oregon, the governor signed a bill
into law.

Since
so many state legislatures and governors, such as our own Gov. Sandoval, shut down
this latest gun control scheme, the anti-gun groups had to find a way around
such obstacles. Ballot initiatives don’t have any checks and balances; a bare
plurality of voters can even amend state constitutions. Using the guise of
public safety, and lots and lots of money, people who don’t understand the
issue can essentially be “bought” into voting away their gun rights. That’s
what happened in Washington in 2014, and possibly in Nevada and Maine as well.
The exploitation of the initiative system by the rich should horrify and enrage
all Americans.

As
for the law itself, it will bring Nevadans no benefit. Under Washington’s
version, only one prosecution has been brought, and that was only after the victim was killed. All this
law can be, in practical terms, is an additional charge after the fact (or at
the worst, harassment of gun owners). As it stands, prosecutions for prohibited
persons attempting to buy guns, or actually being in possession, are dismally
low, especially in Nevada. In California, which has had similar laws for many
years, background checks did not stop the San Bernardino terrorists (who were
actually eligible to buy guns) nor the legions of gang violence of the year.

This
law will disproportionately affect women, Blacks, Hispanics, and the LGBT community.
Women and minorities have historically been uncomfortable in gun stores and may
be deterred from owning a gun because the route they feel comfortable with,
buying from a friend or relative, will be non-existent. Additionally, the
strict regulation of transfers would prohibit one member of an unmarried,
live-in couple using the other member’s firearm without a background check.
Even with a legal temporary transfer, the gun’s owner must get a background
check himself for the borrower to legally return the gun.

This
law is a dog’s breakfast. It is so terribly written that one can look at
similar bills in various states from 2013 and see its evolution. The intent is
not safety; it’s about gun registration.

Implementing the Bloomberg amendments to NRS 202.362 - does it imply the creation of a firearms database (requiring each gun owner to self-register their existing firearms) so police can check to see if you have violated the law by transferring a firearm without going to an FFL, or, is it a passive way of creating such a database as people use FFLs? Thanks for your insights.